Advice For Running An "Evil" Campaign?

Well, that would be interesting ... but as I've said, this is going to be a secondary campaign that will be run only when the main campaign gets put on hold due to player absences ... having said that, I'm reluctant to put a bunch of extra work into it if I don't have to. (thus the ready-to-run World's Largest Dungeon)

This has been on the back of my mind for the better part of today, so I figured I'd throw out a bit of a brainstorm as to things you can do with evil PCs:

• Have them work for a criminal organization, i.e. with a crime lord
• Have them run their own organization
• Infiltrate the opposition (whether that's a themed/re-skinned dungeon crawl or some sort of stealthy mission)
• (Depending on the group) Plenty of black comedy would keep things laid-back and a bit silly at times (fitting for an "off night" game), but still serious enough to be engaging. Especially things like making deaths of heroes completely over-the-top ridiculous
• World domination!
• Expose corruption of the "good"
• Planting the seeds of anarchy?
• Be con artists
• Trying to one-up the other evil guys just for the sake of one-upping people
• Every party needs a mad scientist.

Worst case, you can always reskin a typical dungeon crawl into "evil organizations and political intrigue that leads to adventuring in the name of fighting off good"

My first advice is to ignore most advice. Ignore stereotypes, active/reactive, and so forth. In many respects, evil PCs are just like their good counterparts (in some gritty scenarios, they may be almost indistinguishable).

Evil characters:

- Are not necessarily stupid or short-sighted, any more than good characters are smart or wise
- Do not necessarily commit any given evil act, any more than good characters commit every possible good act
- Are not less human or interesting than good characters
- Do not necessarily lack moral understanding, any more than good characters necessarily posses it.
- Are, at some level, unhappy.
- Are capable of good, just as good characters are capable of evil.
- Sometimes get along with others, just as good characters sometimes fail to do so.

So an evil character is basically just a character, who is willing to do certain things that are recognizably evil. Almost any good campaign concept has an evil counterpart waiting to happen. Is there fundamentally any difference in structure between rescuing a princess from goblins and receiving a reward, versus rescuing her from goblins so you can ransom her? Can't you destroy good artifacts in the depths of forgotten temples... or even evil artifacts that are on the wrong team of evil? Pillage ruins? Slay drargons? Explore the wilderness? Meet new and exciting cultures and kill them?

Arguably, many of the great "heroes" of history are evil viewed from different viewpoints than the traditional view prescribed by their culture.

pawsplay said:

My first advice is to ignore most advice. Ignore stereotypes, active/reactive, and so forth. In many respects, evil PCs are just like their good counterparts (in some gritty scenarios, they may be almost indistinguishable).

Click to expand...

While indeed very, very true, whenever I think "evil campaign" I get a specific concept in my head. Certainly, "evil" itself is less explicitly defined when we discuss it as a concept, but I think in terms of an RPG campaign concept, when someone contemplates it, they're looking for something that sets things apart from the norm.

That being said, your advice on evil characters/etc. is absolutely fantastic, and there are a number of good points to keep in mind. An "evil" character isn't necessarily your stereotypical "kills people all the time wantonly" bad guy.

pawsplay said:

Evil characters:

- Are not necessarily stupid or short-sighted, any more than good characters are smart or wise
- Do not necessarily commit any given evil act, any more than good characters commit every possible good act
- Are not less human or interesting than good characters
- Do not necessarily lack moral understanding, any more than good characters necessarily posses it.
- Are, at some level, unhappy.
- Are capable of good, just as good characters are capable of evil.
- Sometimes get along with others, just as good characters sometimes fail to do so.

Click to expand...

This.

MadLordOfMilk said:

An "evil" character isn't necessarily your stereotypical "kills people all the time wantonly" bad guy.

Click to expand...

And this.

My only real advice to someone who wants to run an Evil Campaign is: make sure your players are mature/sophisticated enough to handle it. Players who can only imagine "evil" as "a psychopath with no understanding of the consequences of his actions" will doom your campaign from the start.

Vegepygmy said:

My only real advice to someone who wants to run an Evil Campaign is: make sure your players are mature/sophisticated enough to handle it. Players who can only imagine "evil" as "a psychopath with no understanding of the consequences of his actions" will doom your campaign from the start.

Click to expand...

Well, our group is 35 yrs and up, with me being the oldest at 40 yrs and I realize that doesn't translate to maturity level / intelligence / sophistication ... but I'd like to think that my players' primary goal is to have intelligent fun and would indeed take into account all the valid points being made here so it's a positive thing rather than a waste of time.

I am currently running a Pathfinder home-brew with a party of evil character PCs. Its an urban setting with multiple factions of diverse alignment and power sources. Basically two wanted to play 'evil'. One a playing a rogue wanted to take up levels in Assassin (requirement: evil). Another wanted to play a cleric of Urgathoa and play a necromancer styled cleric. The other three were not particularly interested or uninterested and created 'evil' characters.

The rogue/assassin is a pro, performs assigned assassination as they come up, but otherwise is a honorable member of society at least publically. The cleric is a bit depraved, however. He animating anything the party kills. Upon arrival to a 'terrorist bombing' incident by a third party, the cleric cast a Death Knell onto the injured and near dead at the site. (The rest of the gaming group is kind of aghast at his characters behavior.)

The other three are 'evil' only in alignment and vulnerabilities, but otherwise are playing their same neutral selves they play in any adventure.

We're up to 12th level, though after the next session, they will be 13th. Though the party has fought some paladins and inquisitors in their past adventures, they also fought other evil elements that infringed on their 'territory' or were otherwise a threat to the party, so were as eagerly defeated and/or dismantled to be rendered harmless.

The city is basically lawful neutral, under an evil regime with a wise ruler who has given concessions to the urban poor, and the non-evil churches to better maintain external evil agendas.

I think the campaign would serve better if the party were all good or neutrally aligned, rather than evil, but it was the player's choice so I accomodated. Again the cleric is bit too much for my taste. But he does have a price on his head (he was unable to Death Knell the last fighter the party slew, as reinforcements were arriving. The party caster created a teleport allowing him to take the party now, so they all left.)

Basically, if done right, it doesn't have to fall into back-stabbing, bringing too much attention to oneself or the party, practicing evil in tiny bits and otherwise being neutral members of the community. The party, so far is loyal to one another, each having his own personal secret agenda, and trading favors with one another in furtherance of each's agenda - none conflict with the other. No sense in deliberately creating party antagonism.

Its been fun, if a bit too dark at times.

GP